MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Four Classifiers Used in Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery for Petroleum Exploration and Development

2011· article· en· W1646251836 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Guangren Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in petroleum exploration and development · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupport vector machineNonlinear systemArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceData miningMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)Identification (biology)Computer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The application of data mining and knowledge discovery in databases for petroleum exploration and development (PED but Case 2 shows that the results of only SVM have zero residuals, while BAYD, BPNN and MRA have unallowable residuals. The reasons are: a) since the two cases are nonlinear problems, the linear MRA is not applicable; b) since the nonlinearity of Case 1 is weak, the nonlinear BAYD, BPNN and SVM are applicable; and c) since the nonlinearity of Case 2 is strong, only nonlinear SVM is applicable. Therefore, it is proposed that: we can adopt MRA when a problem is linear; adopt BAYD, BPNN, or SVM when a problem is weakly nonlinear; and adopt only SVM when a problem is strongly nonlinear. In addition, the predictions of the applicable classifiers coincide with real exploration results, and a commercial gas trap was discovered after the forecast in Case 1 and SVM can correct some erroneous well-log interpretations in Case 2. Key words: Multiple regression analysis; Bayesian discrimination; Back-propagation neural network; Support vector machine; Trap quality evaluation; Oil identification

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in petroleum exploration and developmentSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207